X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Giving is giving, right? I have no angle. Just thought it was curious. Katrina Money For Education Goes to N. Bush's Ignite
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 Halliburton! 640727[/snapback] Halitosis!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Giving is giving, right? I have no angle. Just thought it was curious. Katrina Money For Education Goes to N. Bush's Ignite 640724[/snapback] What I really don't get is: if you want to donate money specifically to go towards purchasing specific educational software...why not buy the software and donate it directly? Is there some sort of tax implication or something? Otherwise, I don't see a reason for it.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 What I really don't get is: if you want to donate money specifically to go towards purchasing specific educational software...why not buy the software and donate it directly? Is there some sort of tax implication or something? Otherwise, I don't see a reason for it. 640731[/snapback] That's exactly what I was wondering. It doesn't seem like they are hiding anything, but earmarking it to come back to help the family. Just seems like a curious way to go about it.
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 What I really don't get is: if you want to donate money specifically to go towards purchasing specific educational software...why not buy the software and donate it directly? Is there some sort of tax implication or something? Otherwise, I don't see a reason for it. 640731[/snapback] Actually there are tax implications. If you donate and specify that something be used for something specific and not what the charity deems best use, then you cannot take a deduction. Hence this is actually better giving on her part since prevents her from taking the tax writeoff.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 Actually there are tax implications. If you donate and specify that something be used for something specific and not what the charity deems best use, then you cannot take a deduction. Hence this is actually better giving on her part since prevents her from taking the tax writeoff. 640733[/snapback] I'm no CPA. By why donate it and earmark it then? There has to be a grey area there.
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I'm no CPA. By why donate it and earmark it then? There has to be a grey area there. 640738[/snapback] So that you can donate and earmark it. Some people give because it's the right thing, not for the deduction. I am not a CPA either but I have given to specific charities in the last few years with instructions on how to use it specifically. I was not permitted a deduction because I did that, however, these were things I felt strong about and worth more to me then the deduction.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 So that you can donate and earmark it. Some people give because it's the right thing, not for the deduction. I am not a CPA either but I have given to specific charities in the last few years with instructions on how to use it specifically. I was not permitted a deduction because I did that, however, these were things I felt strong about and worth more to me then the deduction. 640742[/snapback] I never knew that. I have never been much of an earmarker.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Actually there are tax implications. If you donate and specify that something be used for something specific and not what the charity deems best use, then you cannot take a deduction. Hence this is actually better giving on her part since prevents her from taking the tax writeoff. 640733[/snapback] Ah, but the potential jokes...edumacation software by my son Neil, pronunciation by my son George. Nepotism by my husband. Alcoholism by my grandaughters Jenna and Barbara. Can't think of one for Jeb...how to steal a Presidential election.
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Ah, but the potential jokes...edumacation software by my son Neil, pronunciation by my son George. Nepotism by my husband. Alcoholism by my grandaughters Jenna and Barbara. Can't think of one for Jeb...how to steal a Presidential election. 640751[/snapback] And what does that have to do with someone giving money out of their own pocket to help others knowing they don't get a tax deduction. Wow, you are a loser.
pdh1 Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Ah, but the potential jokes...edumacation software by my son Neil, pronunciation by my son George. Nepotism by my husband. Alcoholism by my grandaughters Jenna and Barbara. Can't think of one for Jeb...how to steal a Presidential election. 640751[/snapback] Gayest Post .....Ever.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Gayest Post .....Ever. 640814[/snapback] Oh common, you righties need a sense of humor and you complain about all the nepotism in Buffalo, give it a rest. The Bushs' just can't give with no strings attached, got to benefit someone in the family. Not so sure about the tax implications, you guys sure. Talk about whiny righties, maybe the Berkeley study was right.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Actually there are tax implications. If you donate and specify that something be used for something specific and not what the charity deems best use, then you cannot take a deduction. Hence this is actually better giving on her part since prevents her from taking the tax writeoff. 640733[/snapback] Actually, it would have been "better giving" on her part if she made a donation That wasn't earmarked for the benefit of her son. I'm sure that the Katrina fund could have found a better use for the money than Neil's software. Food or clothing come to mind. Although Neil's software might come in handy as a drink coaster for some of the victims.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 And what does that have to do with someone giving money out of their own pocket to help others knowing they don't get a tax deduction. Wow, you are a loser. 640755[/snapback] Man you sure you want to open that pandoras box? Giving money to her son's company through a charity sounds pretty bad on its face. Halliburton...hah! that is just the tip of the icebergs for sarcastic return posts and I haven't even really had time to think about it. It would sound bad if she donated it for 100,000 blankets or mobile trailers if the donation was to her son. I am not going to impune any negative crap on you as a person, but your response stinks of Bush lemming itis, think about it and if you still feel that strongly have some of that White House wine our President is so fond of and sleep on it.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 And what does that have to do with someone giving money out of their own pocket to help others knowing they don't get a tax deduction. Wow, you are a loser. 640755[/snapback] And if it were the Clintons, you'd be the first in there with cigar jokes. Just let it go...
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 And if it were the Clintons, you'd be the first in there with cigar jokes. Just let it go... 640919[/snapback] Never happen. The Clintons and Gore never give to charities.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 Never happen. The Clintons and Gore never give to charities. 641014[/snapback] I bet Bill could have a good time in Thailand with Neil though.
pdh1 Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Oh common, you righties need a sense of humor and you complain about all the nepotism in Buffalo, give it a rest. The Bushs' just can't give with no strings attached, got to benefit someone in the family. Not so sure about the tax implications, you guys sure. Talk about whiny righties, maybe the Berkeley study was right. 640845[/snapback] Sorry, I don't see this as a left/right issue. If someone wants to give money to a charity, who the f#@k cares? There are a lot bigger things going on in the world to get work up about.
Johnny Coli Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 If someone wants to give money to a charity, who the f#@k cares? 641042[/snapback] Because, if you read the article, Neil Bush has been trying like hell to get widespread distribution of his program in schools. Leonard said that in the past six to eight months, the company has hired national sales representatives across the country — in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Nevada — in hopes of expanding beyond Texas. Currently, about 80 percent of the company's customers are from Texas. Last year, Neil Bush reportedly toured former Soviet Union countries promoting Ignite with Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky. Of course schools in Houston will use the Bush/Ignite software. The article states that he's been a key solicitor of funds for HISD. The deal raised conflict of interest concerns because Neil Bush and company officials helped solicit the donations for the HISD Foundation, a philanthropic group that raises money for the district. So, in essence, he's been busting his ass to get the school district charitable donations, that they can "decide" to turn around and buy his software with. In turn, he gets to say his program is in so many numbers of schools, which ultimately gives the appearence of credibility. He is, in essence, using the Houston school system under the guise of charitability to get numbers on paper that will influence his ability to get his software into Russia, most likely at a neat bit of profit. There's nothing illegal with that, of course. It smells bad, and we can pretend him and his Mom are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts for all those displaced Katrina victims, but it's not illegal.
Recommended Posts